Implications of lung cancer screening in the new millenia Andrew R. Haas, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Section of Interventional Pulmonary and.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Please note, these are the actual video-recorded proceedings from the live CME event and may include the use of trade names and other raw, unedited content.
Advertisements

Helical CT Screening for Lung Cancer at Advanced Radiology Consultants
Joseph J. Muscato, MD, FACP Medical Director Stewart Cancer Center, Boone Hospital.
The Role of Computed Tomography (CT) Screening for Lung Cancer Recommendations from the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Society of.
†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department.
BREAST CANCER SCREENING Anoop Agrawal, M.D.. NEW USPSTF BREAST SCREENING GUIDELINES Published by US Preventative Screening Task Force in November 2009.
Lower Dosage CT-guided Lung Biopsy Protocol Maintains Quality, Minimizes Exposure Jeremy Collins, MD Pegah E, Lewandowski RJ, Yaghmai V, Nemcek jr AA,
Lung Cancer Screening Update 29 th Annual Denali Oncology Group Reginald F. Munden MD, DMD, MBA I have no conflicts of interest to report.
J Thorac Dis 2013;5(S5) Estimated 10 year survival 88%, regardless of treatment Survival rate 92% if surgical resection in 1 month.
Lung Cancer Screening in 2013 Cheryl Czerlanis, MD Loyola University Medical Center March 02, 2013.
Goldstraw et al. J Thorac Oncol 2007 Why should we want to screen? Survival (years)
An update for Illinois Nurses Elizabeth A. Peralta, MD The Breast Center at SIU Springfield, IL May 2011.
Lung Cancer Screening Implementation: Promises, Challenges, Opportunities Jamie L. Studts, PhD Associate Professor of Behavioral Science Assistant Director.
Matthew Kilmurry, M.D. St. Mary’s General Hospital Grand River Hospital.
Clinical Solutions for Lung Cancer Screening (LCS)
Cancer Program Standards 2012: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care
How, Who, What Happens Next? Betty C. Tong, MD, MHS Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery Co-Director, Lung Cancer Screening Program Duke University.
Breast Cancer 101 Barbara Lee Bass, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery
Clinical Trials The Way We Make Progress Against Disease.
Screen discovered nodules: What next? Anil Vachani, MD, MS Assistant Professor of Medicine Director, Lung Nodule Program University of Pennsylvania Medical.
Early Detection of breast cancer Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP Associate Director, Research, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada.
Geriatric Health Maintenance: Cancer Screening Linda DeCherrie, MD Geriatric Fellow Mount Sinai Hospital.
M Ravanbod Medical oncologist Bushehr – 11/91 A 50 y/o white man comes for check up and wants to discuss about prostate cancer. Negative family history.
Early Lung Cancer Screening: An Update of the Current Evidence
Indianapolis Discovery Network for Dementia Forecasting the Future Impact of Early Detection and Management Program for Alzheimer.
Patient is a man, 60 years, smoker (60 p/y), who has lost one of his friend two week ago because of progressive lung cancer. He is worried about his.
Title: Presenters: Date: Proportion of Newly Diagnosed Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients That Would Have Been Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening Division.
Clinical Trials. What is a clinical trial? Clinical trials are research studies involving people Used to find better ways to prevent, detect, and treat.
Prostate Screening in 2009: New Findings and New Questions Durado Brooks, MD, MPH Director, Prostate and Colorectal Cancer.
Finding N.E.M.O. Marvin R. Balaan, MD, FCCP System Division Director, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh.
EPIB-591 Screening Jean-François Boivin 29 September
The potential impact of adherence to a guideline on the utilization of head CT scans in traumatic head injury patients. Frederick K. Korley M.D.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care:
Lung Cancer Screening with Low Dose Computed Tomography Todd Robbins, MD Co-Director, Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program.
Organized Diagnostic Assessment Demonstration Projects Organized Diagnostic Assessment Demonstration Projects Grand River Regional Diagnostic Assessment.
Prostate Cancer: A Case for Active Surveillance Philip Kantoff MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School.
Sanford USD Medical Center Sioux Falls, SD Becky Nelson, Senior VP & COO Health Service Operations Sanford Health.
The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Fifth Annual African-American Prostate Cancer Disparity Summit September 24, 2009 Christine.
Early Detection of Lung Cancer & Beyond
 Volunteer bias  Lead time bias  Length bias  Stage migration bias  Pseudodisease.
Joni Reynolds, RN-CNS, MSN Director of Public Health Programs Winnable Battles: Cancer in Colorado.
Implications of lung cancer screening in the new millenia Andrew R. Haas, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Section of Interventional Pulmonary and.
American College of Radiology Imaging Network ACRIN 6664 ACRIN 6664 – Protocol Review The National CT Colonography Trial Name(s) of presenters.
Lung Cancer Screening: Benefits and limitations to its Implementation
[Insert Organization Name] Making the Case for Lung Cancer Screening.
REDUCED LUNG-CANCER MORTALITY WITH LOW-DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC SCREENING The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team N Engl J Med 2011;365:
Date of download: 5/28/2016 From: Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Strategies: A Comparative Modeling Study for the U.S.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer Anna Bill-Axelson, M.D., Lars Holmberg, M.D., Ph.D., Mirja Ruutu, M.D., Ph.D., Michael.
PSA screening Cost Conscious Project Kristopher Huston January 2016.
Cancer Education Day Lung Cancer Screening Update Kirenza Francis, MD, FRCPC, DABR Windsor Radiological Associates May 13, 2016.
CHEST 2014; 145(4): 호흡기내과 R3 박세정. Cigarette smoking ㅡ the most important risk factor for COPD in the US. low value of FEV 1 : an independent predictor.
Lo Screening del Tumore Polmonare: Siamo Pronti? Mario Silva Section of Radiology, Department of Surgical Sciences University of Parma, IT bioMILD Lung.
R2 정명화 D R Baldwin, S W Duffy, N J Wald, R Page, D M Hansell,J K Field Thorax ; April 2011,Vol 66.
Lung Cancer Screening Update
Making the Case for Lung Cancer Screening
Cancer Screening Guidelines
Lung Cancer Screening A Pulmonary Revolution
Request for coverage of LDCT by Medicare
From: Use of Decision Models in the Development of Evidence-Based Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services.
Background & Objectives
Lung Cancer Screening:
Making the Case for Lung Cancer Screening
Screening for Lung Cancer
Consultant Respiratory Physician Professor of Primary Care Oncology
LUNG CANCER SCREENING & SMOKING CESSATION
Lung Cancer Screening Sandra Starnes, MD Professor of Surgery
Pulmonary nodules discovered on CT scan of the chest
Lung Cancer screening. The NELSON trial.
Presentation transcript:

Implications of lung cancer screening in the new millenia Andrew R. Haas, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Section of Interventional Pulmonary and Thoracic Oncology Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania

Disclosures  None

The National Lung Screening Trial has demonstrated which of the following :  A) A reduction in all cause mortality of 15.3%  B) A modest false positive rate of 9%  C) A relative reduction in lung cancer specific mortality of 20%  D) Follow up of false positive scans had no patient impact  E) A very cost effective approach to reduction in lung cancer mortality

Rationale for lung CA screening  Lung CA –2 nd most common cancer in the US –Most common cause of cancer death in the US and world –Prognosis depends primarily upon stage at diagnosis –Early detection with screening may lead to improved outcomes??? Siegel et al, CA Cancer J Clin 2011

Rationale for lung CA screening  Smoking –~1 in 5 adults (~46 million people) in US smoke –#1 risk factor for lung CA  ~85% of lung CA deaths are due to smoking –> 94 million current and former smokers in US are at increased risk for lung CA

Prior Lung Ca Screening Trials Mayo Clinic Study Czech Study Sloan Kettering study Johns Hopkins study CXR + Sputum cytology CXR + Sputum cytologyvs. Usual Care Usual Care CXR + Sputum cytology vs. vs. CXR alone

National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)  A collaboration between ACRIN and NCI  The largest and most expensive randomized clinical trial of a single screening test in US medical history $250,000,000

NLST – Eligibility criteria  Age years  Current or former > 30 pack-year smoking history –Former smokers quit within last 15 years  No history of lung CA  No treatment for or evidence of any other cancer within the last 5 years

NLST – Study design Enrollment: 8/2002-4/2004 Annual Interim Analyses: 4/ /2010 Final: 10/2010 Prospective randomized controlled trial Screening for 3 consecutive years with either CXR or low-dose chest CT

NLST – Primary endpoint  Lung cancer specific mortality –20% difference between CT vs. CXR  Type 1 error rate (  )  = 5%  Power (1 -  ) = 90%  Compliance 85% CT | 80% CXR  Contamination 5% CT | 10% CXR  Size = 25,000 subjects/arm

NLST – Secondary endpoints  Comparison of CT and CXR regarding –All-cause mortality –Incidence of lung CA –Lung CA stage distribution –Medical resource utilization –Quality of life and psychological impact –Cost-effectiveness

NLST – Screen interpretation  Positive screen –Non-calcified nodule(s) > 4 mm –Other findings suspicious for lung CA  Negative screen –Non-calcified nodule(s) < 4 mm –Morphologically benign nodule(s) –Other minor abnormalities –Clinically important abnormalities requiring follow-up but not suspicious for lung CA

NLST – Subject accrual and biospecimen collection  Recruitment from 33 screening centers  Blood, urine, and sputum biospecimens collected at –15 NLST-ACRIN sites –10208 subjects total  Paraffin blocks of resected tumors collected –Across all NLST sites

NLST – Screen positivity rate NLST Research Team, NEJM 2011 Study year CTCXR Number screened Number positive % Positive Number screened Number positive % Positive Screen 126,3097, ,0352, Screen 224,7156, ,0891, Screen 324,1024, **23,3461, ** All screens75,12618, ,4705, Positive screen: nodule ≥ 4 mm or other findings potentially related to lung cancer. *Positive screen: nodule ≥ 4 mm or other findings potentially related to lung cancer. **Abnormality stable for 3 rounds could be called negative by protocol.

NLST – Significance of positive screens NLST Research Team, NEJM 2011 Screening result CTCXR Screen 1 N (%) Screen 2 N (%) Screen 3 N (%) Total Screen 1 N (%) Screen 2 N (%) Screen 3 N (%) Total Total Positives 7,191 (100) 6,901 (100) 4,054 (100) 18,146 (100) 2,387 (100) 1,482 (100) 1,174 (100) 5043 (100) Lung CA confirmed 270 (3.8)168 (2.4)211 (5.2)649 (3.6)136 (5.7)65 (4.4)78 (6.6)279 (5.5) Lung CA not confirmed 6,921 (96.2) 6,733 (97.6) 3,843 (94.8) 17,497 (96.4) 2,251 (94.3) 1,417 (95.6) 1,096 (93.4) 4,764 (94.5)

Total Lung Cancer Cases  LDCT – 1060  CXR – 941  RR 1.13

All Stages Stage Number of Patients NLST – NSCLC Stage Distribution

Lung Cancer Mortality

NLST – Results Lung CA specific mortalityLung CA specific mortality –Relative reduction by 20% (95% CI , p=0.004) (87 fewer deaths in CT vs. CXR arm) –The number needed to screen with CT to prevent 1 death from lung CA is 320 All cause mortalityAll cause mortality –Rate of death reduction decreased by 6.7% (95% CI , p=0.02) –Rate of death reduction decreased by 3.2% (p=0.28) when lung CA deaths excluded Stage distribution more favorable for CT than CXRStage distribution more favorable for CT than CXR CT 70.2% vs. 56.7% were stage I-IICT 70.2% vs. 56.7% were stage I-II NLST Research Team, NEJM 2011

“Formal” guidelines  American College Chest Physicians  American Society of Clinical Oncology  National Comprehensive Cancer Network  Society of Thoracic Surgeons –55-74 yo –> 30 pk-yrs tobacco use  US Preventive Services Task Force –August 2013 provided positive recommendation

Remaining questions What happens if we screen for more than 3 years?What happens if we screen for more than 3 years? Do benefits or harms increase?Do benefits or harms increase? Is annual screening the best interval?Is annual screening the best interval? If we screen less frequently, we will detect a greater proportion of indolent cancers, possibly miss aggressive cancersIf we screen less frequently, we will detect a greater proportion of indolent cancers, possibly miss aggressive cancers

Implementation challenges  Cost-effectiveness  Patient selection and access Institutions offering screening CT regardless of re-imbursementInstitutions offering screening CT regardless of re-imbursement Will the pressure to recoup costs via ↑ procedures be overwhelming?Will the pressure to recoup costs via ↑ procedures be overwhelming? Patient navigationPatient navigation Provider workforceProvider workforce Pulmonary, radiology, etc.Pulmonary, radiology, etc. Associated services (tobacco cessation, COPD care)Associated services (tobacco cessation, COPD care)

Ensuring Quality What if compliance (with screening) is poor?What if compliance (with screening) is poor? How important is scan quality/interpretation?How important is scan quality/interpretation? Rate of biopsy for benign lesions varies extensivelyRate of biopsy for benign lesions varies extensively Rate of biopsy complications in US varies extensively by regionRate of biopsy complications in US varies extensively by region Quality of thoracic surgery in US varies extensivelyQuality of thoracic surgery in US varies extensively

LDCT Randomized Trials NELSON * 15,822 NLST 53,454 Depiscan LSS Garg DANTE ITALUNG DLCT

Conclusions  The NLST has shown that CT screening –Decreases lung CA specific mortality –Has a high false positive rate  Further analyses ongoing  Biomarker identification will likely play an important role  Smoking prevention and cessation are still critical to reduce lung CA incidence and mortality rates

The National Lung Screening Trial has demonstrated which of the following : A) A reduction in all cause mortality of 15.3% B) A modest false positive rate of 9% C) A relative reduction in lung cancer specific mortality of 20% D) Follow up of false positive scans had no patient impact E) A very cost effective approach to reduction in lung cancer mortality